Search for: "McCain v. McCain" Results 641 - 660 of 962
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Oct 2008, 7:30 pm
McCain and builds it into an assertion that McCain favors U.S. forces staying in Iraq for a century, when it is clear from the context that McCain was not taking such a position. [read post]
17 Oct 2008, 1:48 pm
You can separately subscribe to the Online edition of the IP Thinktank Global Week in Review by subscribing by email, or selecting 'all posts' or 'IP on the net' at the Subscribe page: [duncanbucknell.com]   Hightlights this week included: McCain campaign sends letter to YouTube defending fair use; YouTube tells McCain he doesn't get special DMCA treatment (Law360) (Ars Technica) (Ars Technica) (EFF) (Techdirt) (The Trademark Blog) (Lessig Blog)… [read post]
17 Oct 2008, 1:19 am
I do not believe that someone who has supported Roe v. [read post]
16 Oct 2008, 8:38 pm
Add Bon Jovi to the list of musicians who have asked the McCain campaign to stop using their music at campaign appearances. [read post]
16 Oct 2008, 2:11 pm
I do not believe that someone who has supported Roe v. [read post]
16 Oct 2008, 2:02 pm
* "Barack Obama looked like a prosecutor delivering a polished summation in a long civil case, Joe the Plumber v. [read post]
16 Oct 2008, 7:03 am
Susan Cartier Liebel says lawyer directories could be worthless;Ron Miller on the ugly practice of lawyers trying to get access to accident police reports in an effort to obtain clients (also at Overlawyered);A UK rugby player sues due to a career-ending eye injury (BBC);Mediator Diane Levin hosts Blawg Review #181 on Conflict Resolution Day;Joe Paduda has the pre-election health care debate in his Health Wonk Review;And a patriotic dad decides to name his kid Sarah McCain Palin. [read post]
16 Oct 2008, 4:34 am
I do not believe that someone who has supported Roe v. [read post]
15 Oct 2008, 9:55 pm
Under the Supreme Court’s decision in Tinker v. [read post]
15 Oct 2008, 9:00 pm
On the other hand, Professor Rai's comments above sound much more reasonable and less anti-applicant than the points made in the amicus brief she recently submitted along with Professor Lemley in Tafas v. [read post]